Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I feel that Hillary is more than capable and frankly will be able to offer Obama sound advice he will desperately needs and which Biden simply doesn't get. Hillary is more than capable of standing up to anyone in the world, while being fair as well. In my mind I see two questions with her, will she learn from her husbands mistakes, as to not repeat them and to prevent Obama from repeating them and the other question is, how much will Obama listen to her?
As for the others, I have my initial thoughts, but, I don't think they would be fair. For myself I need to do some homework on some questions I have to find correct answers.
Keeping Gates is interesting at best. I don't dislike him, but, he has never completely won me over. I don't really see that as a bad thing. Also, how much of keeping him is substance and how much is show? Only time will tell.
I certainly hope Hillary won't have to dodge more gunfire in the Balkans.
Obama rolls out national security team - CNN.com
what are ya'll thoughts on these selections? good, bad, indifferent?
Funny how BHO's lefty Libby friends think his foreign policy and security picks are more hawkish than expected
Could it be the security briefings BHO has been getting scared the pants off him (or at least made him pee a little in his boxers) that he is abandoning his far left buddies when it comes to national security?
A more likely scenario is that you and your wingnut friends lied about Obama being a marxist/communist.
That seems more plausible, than the assertion that two months ago Obama was a radical muslim marxist, yet today all of a "sudden" he's a mainstream, somewhat hawkish Democrat.
Not one single person among Obama's choices for national security was correct about the invasion of Iraq. .. Not one.
Using Obama's own words .. If knowing the invasion of Iraq was wrong and required "good judgment", why has he surrounded himself with people who didn't have it?
here's the best thought of the day.. and it came from a guy I know on another board.. he said:
"One has to wonder why B.O. isn't appointing more of Bushes national defense team that kept us safe for 7 years instead of Clinton's that stood by and watched as we suffered 6 terrorist attacks and the build up to 9-11."
Here is the problem with the dream reality some live in. Bush's term did not start on Sept.12 2001. Therefore his administration failed to protect us from the largest attack on our soil ever. People like to believe that Clinton failed to respond properly to the USS Cole bombing which is completely false. Clinton and his anti-terroism czar Richard Clark were eager to retaliate against Al Qaeda unfortunately the CIA and FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible until early 2001, which obviously was too late to develop a response by the Clinton admin. So the real question is, why didnt the Bush admin do anything about the USS Cole?
Secondly, if Bush's admin was so good at protecting our nation, then just how did 9/11 happen on his watch?
Everything Clinton didn't do in his eight years led up to 9-11. bush was sworn in in Jan. barely seven months... If Clinton couldn't stop it in eight years why expect it of Bush in 7 months??? oh and there was that little matter of all the agencies being forbidden to share information.. I forget the lady's name who got that shit rammed thruogh.. I'll look for it thought.
Everything Clinton didn't do in his eight years led up to 9-11. bush was sworn in in Jan. barely seven months... If Clinton couldn't stop it in eight years why expect it of Bush in 7 months??? oh and there was that little matter of all the agencies being forbidden to share information.. I forget the lady's name who got that shit rammed thruogh.. I'll look for it thought.
Okay so from Jan01-Sep01 whose administration was recieving the daily intel on possible terroist threats against the US? Was it Clinton's or Bush's admin which failed to act? Who was the POTUS on sept 11, 2001 Clinton or Bush?
I put 9-11 squarely on the shoulders of the impotent Clinton who was President for 8 years and sat idly by doing nothing but "police action" now just off the top of my head the wtc was attacked, the cobart towers, two embassies in Africa, the Cole, and some I cannot remember,,,, hello,, and don't forget Somalia,, yes,, it was a long series of attacks leading right up to 9-11.. and he did nothing,, and if it happens 9-11 2009 guess what, it's on Obama, cause I can safely say that I think Bush has busted his ass going after terrorists and obamalama goes in eyes wide open.. Clinton didn't do crap..
Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Richard Clarke told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview Sunday night. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
Clarke said he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting in January 2001, shortly after the president took office, to discuss the threat al Qaeda posed to the United States. "That urgent memo wasn't acted on," Clarke told CBS. Instead, he said, administration officials were focused on issues such as missile defense and Iraq.
CNN.com - Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings - Mar 23, 2004
it made me sit and wonder, while Hillary was speaking, of all the backroom wheeling and dealing, and throat cutting that came to pass to get her to surrender her bid for the presidency and submit to taking this tidbit of leftovers the democrats forced her to swallow!
and she did it. she played along!
Could it be that Obama is a pragmatic politician that not only knows how to put together a team that wins elections, but also how to put together a team that knows how to govern.
A more likely scenario is that you and your wingnut friends lied about Obama being a marxist/communist.
That seems more plausible, than the assertion that two months ago Obama was a radical muslim marxist, yet today all of a "sudden" he's a mainstream, somewhat hawkish Democrat.
I never said he was a radical Muslim. And I didn't call him mainstream either.
What I said was that his national security picks were more hawkish and right of center than anyone expected. BHO is still a far left libby, rated the most liberal senator .
with that in mind, one has to wonder why the drastic departure from his record when it comes to national security.
What since the election has changed in BHO's lefty world that could possibly compel him to swing from far left to right center at least as far as his national security team is concerned?
the simplest answer is that when confronted with the reality if national security and the intelligence he is now privy to, BHO realized that his lefty "we are the world" philosophy was a little to sissified for the real world.
